SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Chinese state media has urged authorities to take a "tougher line" against protesters in Hong Kong who vandalised state-run Xinhua news agency and other buildings at the weekend, saying the violence damaged the city's rule of law.
[...] In an editorial, state-backed China Daily newspaper criticised the "wanton" attacks by "naive" demonstrators, adding, "They are doomed to fail simply because their violence will encounter the full weight of the law."
Police fired tear gas at black-clad protesters on Saturday and Sunday in some of the worst violence in the Asian financial hub in weeks, with metro stations set ablaze and buildings vandalised.
Violence also erupted on Sunday after a man with a knife attacked several people and bit off part of the ear of a pro-democracy politician. Two of the victims are reportedly in critical condition, according to reports.
The past five months of anti-government protests in the former British colony represent the biggest popular challenge to President Xi Jinping's government since he took over China's leadership in late 2012.
Protesters are angry at China's perceived meddling with Hong Kong's freedoms, including its legal system, since the Asian financial hub returned to Chinese rule in 1997. China denies the accusation.
The widely-read Global Times tabloid on Sunday condemned the protesters' actions targeting Xinhua and called for action by Hong Kong's enforcement agencies.
"Due to the symbolic image of Xinhua, the vandalizing of its branch is not only a provocation to the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also to the central government and the Chinese mainland, which is the rioters' main purpose," it said.
On Friday, after a meeting of China's top leadership, a senior Chinese official said it would not tolerate separatism or threats to national security in Hong Kong and would "perfect" the way it appointed the city's leader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:09PM
I think your interpretation of state media is based on stereotypes instead of reality.
For instance the BBC is state media. Does it simply parrot Boris Johnson's interests? Radio Free Europe [rferl.org]/Asia [rfa.org]/etc are entirely state funded US media outlets built for propaganda. Quite literally, Radio Free Europe was funded by the CIA and used to broadcast propaganda into the USSR. Again, do they simply parrot Trump? Various other organizations, such as NPR, also receive substantial state funding.
State media isn't some well honed propaganda device. It's just another awkward agency of the state filled with contrasts, contradictions and, most of all, incompetence. And no, I don't really think there'd be much difference between what much of our media has turned into, and state media. They already serve as little more than puppets when it comes time for things like our military invasions. Remember Iraq? The evidence is Irrefutable [washingtonpost.com]. The NYTimes chose to take it a step further, Irrefutable and Undeniable [nytimes.com]. Using such strong language in light of evidence that was not only questionable but in fact almost entirely fake is a pretty good indicator of the sort of ineptitude and you get with state media. Ineptitude? The writers of those articles undoubtedly knew that there was a very good chance that the whole WMD thing was bullshit, and the world would discover that soon enough. They could have beat their war drums while still leaving themselves some outs. They didn't, because they're inept and myopic.